Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle

 

That had absolutely nothing to do with grammar…

You're insinuating those in support of gay marriage are asking for the right for gay people to marry "whatever they want". You're attempting to invoke some ludicrous slippery slope argument.

Yes, the whatever was intended to allude to the slippery slope gays are standing on. Today its same sex. Tomorrow ?????

sk0rpi0n
No, its proof that godlessness causes degeneracy and stupidity.

Those things have always existed with and without religion.

Just look at the snake handler that died the other day.

reply to post by frazzle

Yes, the whatever was intended to allude to the slippery slope gays are standing on. Today its same sex. Tomorrow ?????

Thanks for acknowledging that I was addressing your post after all

It was a slippery slope when we changed marriage to permit interracial couples.

Behold. They were right! It led to….

Two consenting humans.

reply to post by frazzle


No church, modern or otherwise has been like that. I just showed you corruption and the church have been going hand and hand for centuries. There is nothing morally superior about the church. It is still full of the same assholes and dbags as non-secular institutions. This whole thread is a waste of time because it assumes some sort of moral superiority in religion, but there isn't any. We've already shown that secular societies can function without religion (actually they tend to be better and more accepting), that secular institutions act as charities, that religion uses the same brainwashing as secular outlets, and on and on. Humans DON'T NEED religion. As tough as that is for you and the OP to accept, it is just straight up true. Society isn't going to implode into a land of anarchy, rape, and destruction without it. There was never any moral high ground that religion held. For every moral passage you can point out in the bible, I can find one that puts forth some inhumane action like stoning your children to death. And hey, at least without religion, people can come to their own decisions about what is right and wrong and not let some poor translation and interpretation (from someone else mind you) tell them what is right and wrong.

Here, I just found this on Cracked:

22 Inspiring Acts of Kindness That No One Ever Talks About

But hey, the OP is right, this society is going down the drain... *eyeroll*

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle

 

No church, modern or otherwise has been like that. I just showed you corruption and the church have been going hand and hand for centuries. There is nothing morally superior about the church. It is still full of the same assholes and dbags as non-secular institutions. This whole thread is a waste of time because it assumes some sort of moral superiority in religion, but there isn't any. We've already shown that secular societies can function without religion (actually they tend to be better and more accepting), that secular institutions act as charities, that religion uses the same brainwashing as secular outlets, and on and on. Humans DON'T NEED religion. As tough as that is for you and the OP to accept, it is just straight up true. Society isn't going to implode into a land of anarchy, rape, and destruction without it. There was never any moral high ground that religion held. For every moral passage you can point out in the bible, I can find one that puts forth some inhumane action like stoning your children to death. And hey, at least without religion, people can come to their own decisions about what is right and wrong and not let some poor translation and interpretation (from someone else mind you) tell them what is right and wrong.

If the thread is such a waste of time, why are you wasting so much time on it?

You are referring, I think, to church hierarchy and in that regard you'll have no argument from me. There is nothing morally corrupt people with a desire for power and control won't attempt to penetrate and debauch. Pedophile priests rank right up there, IMO, including the hierarchy that protects them. There's probably nothing like being a molested alter boy or mission school prisoner child to instill an overall hatred for the church ~ not to mention skewing their identity as a human being or as a particular gender.

You say humans don't need religion and for some that's very true, I think its called innate goodness and who knows what drives that? For others there is an avid belligerence against any form of social norm and these types have existed throughout history. Sociopaths I think they're called. These are the ones who advocate violence against children and anyone else they can get their hands on without being punished themselves. Allowing their hostility toward their fellow man to flourish is the death knell for any society/nation. Pushing the envelope of what's acceptable is the name of their game, at least until their debauchery explodes in everyone's face, as it inevitably does.

frazzle

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle

 

No church, modern or otherwise has been like that. I just showed you corruption and the church have been going hand and hand for centuries. There is nothing morally superior about the church. It is still full of the same assholes and dbags as non-secular institutions. This whole thread is a waste of time because it assumes some sort of moral superiority in religion, but there isn't any. We've already shown that secular societies can function without religion (actually they tend to be better and more accepting), that secular institutions act as charities, that religion uses the same brainwashing as secular outlets, and on and on. Humans DON'T NEED religion. As tough as that is for you and the OP to accept, it is just straight up true. Society isn't going to implode into a land of anarchy, rape, and destruction without it. There was never any moral high ground that religion held. For every moral passage you can point out in the bible, I can find one that puts forth some inhumane action like stoning your children to death. And hey, at least without religion, people can come to their own decisions about what is right and wrong and not let some poor translation and interpretation (from someone else mind you) tell them what is right and wrong.

If the thread is such a waste of time, why are you wasting so much time on it?

You are referring, I think, to church hierarchy and in that regard you'll have no argument from me. There is nothing morally corrupt people with a desire for power and control won't attempt to penetrate and debauch. Pedophile priests rank right up there, IMO, including the hierarchy that protects them. There's probably nothing like being a molested alter boy or mission school prisoner child to instill an overall hatred for the church ~ not to mention skewing their identity as a human being or as a particular gender.

If the church is susceptible to corruption and perversion just like secular society, it isn't as high and noble as it claims.

You say humans don't need religion and for some that's very true, I think its called innate goodness and who knows what drives that? For others there is an avid belligerence against any form of social norm and these types have existed throughout history. Sociopaths I think they're called. These are the ones who advocate violence against children and anyone else they can get their hands on without being punished themselves. Allowing their hostility toward their fellow man to flourish is the death knell for any society/nation. Pushing the envelope of what's acceptable is the name of their game, at least until their debauchery explodes in everyone's face, as it inevitably does.

Sociopath behavior (anti-social disorder), the sinister kind, is frowned upon in secular societies as well. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by frazzle

 

Yes, the whatever was intended to allude to the slippery slope gays are standing on. Today its same sex. Tomorrow ?????

Thanks for acknowledging that I was addressing your post after all

It was a slippery slope when we changed marriage to permit interracial couples.

Behold. They were right! It led to….

Two consenting humans.

Well hey, I'm biracial. My French ancestors mated with my Indian ancestors for multiple generations and they made big heaps of Metis babies. The Church and the king of France both promoted this mixing of races although a lot of it wasn't exactly happening under the terms of either. But guess what, there weren't any next generations made by same gendered couples of either French or Native stock or I wouldn't be here. (for which I'm sure a lot of folks would heave a huge sigh of relief)

Maybe you've confused color of skin with genders .....

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant

 

All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?

I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.

edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.

And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?

It is not about proof. Outside mathematics there is no proof. It is about using our minds to form an opinion as to what is the best explanation for the world. My conviction is that these people were inspired by God. Earlier I mentioned The Axial Age. This represents a kind of spiritual equivalent of the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, the world moved forward by a whole movement of enlightenment. There are many many reasons why I am a theist. Theism is, in my thinking, the most comprehensive explanation.

Well to me, that sounds insulting to the ingenuity man. Man couldn't POSSIBLY come up with these concepts on his own, it HAS to be an outside force, a divinity per se.

Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.

So because you can come up with examples of human ingenuity being detrimental to humanity, it disproves that human ingenuity could come up with positive concepts for humanity? In other words all human ingenuity naturally gravitates towards evil and that all good ingenuity is guided by divine light. That is absurd and AGAIN is hugely insulting to the brilliant people who came up with these concepts.

You are taking what I said to extremes. I'm saying that the scales will tip in favour of evil and drag everyone with it. Have you seen the recent reports on CNN about North Korea? The whole world would becom a North Korea, as Orwell and Huxley warned.

This is what you said:

Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.

How am I taking it to extremes? YOU are the one who said that with out God's hand then ingenuity will serve evil. Now you are trying to back peddle and pretend that wasn't the case.

The fact that you think without religion, we'd become North Korea is just straight up laughable. We've already SHOWN secular societies in this very thread that prove that point wrong. Try a different approach.

edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

What I am saying is that humanity - not the individual - will become imprisoned by evil and the evil will rule. Secular societies will become evil if spirituality is lost. My example of North Korea, or Hitler's Germany, or communist Russia are entirely realistic. Read George Orwell's book 1984.

Those secular societies you speak of survive because there is still spirituality in the world, and even in these societies.

reply to post by frazzle

The point was the exact same doom and gloom about this slippery slope was postulated back when marriage was being altered to allow interracial couples. Did it lead to people marrying their pet frog or their apple tree? No. Now we have the same situation; two consenting human beings. As of yet there is no evidence to support a slippery slope leading to anything outside of consenting people. It's an unfounded belief. Then again, the religious are used to believing things without evidence.

Maybe you've confused color of skin with genders .....

Race and sexual orientations have something in common. I wonder if you know what that is.

reply to post by EnPassant

or Hitler's Germany

Sigh.

Hitler believed he was doing god's work. He was religious. It's right there in his Mein Kampf. The Nazis wore belts inscribed with 'God Is With Us'.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
— Adolf Hitler

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
— Adolf Hitler

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
— Adolf Hitler

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Sociopath behavior (anti-social disorder), the sinister kind, is frowned upon in secular societies as well. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Its all about what can be defined as acceptable behavior and that never changes all at once, ideas are carefully injected into the public mind one tiny step at a time often BY sociopaths. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about religious groups or secular institutions, as long as there are "believers" in those institutions the beliefs can be deliberately changed over time so that what was once accepted as normal or abnormal is altered gradually, one step at a time, to make those institutions and religious groups unrecognizable in a matter of a few decades.

Look at the country you're living in. Not so very long ago we were a prosperous, can-do, independent kind of people that was carefully and gradually reworked into being hapless dependents and citizen subjects who can do nothing without written permission. In a few decades.

Its the power of ideas, for good or for bad, that define us and rule us.

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant

 

All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?

I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.

edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.

And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?

It is not about proof. Outside mathematics there is no proof. It is about using our minds to form an opinion as to what is the best explanation for the world. My conviction is that these people were inspired by God. Earlier I mentioned The Axial Age. This represents a kind of spiritual equivalent of the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, the world moved forward by a whole movement of enlightenment. There are many many reasons why I am a theist. Theism is, in my thinking, the most comprehensive explanation.

Well to me, that sounds insulting to the ingenuity man. Man couldn't POSSIBLY come up with these concepts on his own, it HAS to be an outside force, a divinity per se.

Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.

So because you can come up with examples of human ingenuity being detrimental to humanity, it disproves that human ingenuity could come up with positive concepts for humanity? In other words all human ingenuity naturally gravitates towards evil and that all good ingenuity is guided by divine light. That is absurd and AGAIN is hugely insulting to the brilliant people who came up with these concepts.

You are taking what I said to extremes. I'm saying that the scales will tip in favour of evil and drag everyone with it. Have you seen the recent reports on CNN about North Korea? The whole world would becom a North Korea, as Orwell and Huxley warned.

This is what you said:

Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.

How am I taking it to extremes? YOU are the one who said that with out God's hand then ingenuity will serve evil. Now you are trying to back peddle and pretend that wasn't the case.

The fact that you think without religion, we'd become North Korea is just straight up laughable. We've already SHOWN secular societies in this very thread that prove that point wrong. Try a different approach.

edit on 18-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

What I am saying is that humanity - not the individual - will become imprisoned by evil and the evil will rule. Secular societies will become evil if spirituality is lost. My example of North Korea, or Hitler's Germany, or communist Russia are entirely realistic. Read George Orwell's book 1984.

Those secular societies you speak of survive because there is still spirituality in the world, and even in these societies.

Yeah because purely non-secular societies are such bastions of goodwill and niceness. How about you go live in places like Iran or Egypt or Syria. I hear they are very accepting of religious people. But hey you'll argue, those are Muslim countries right? Well what about the entirety of Europe between around 500 ad to around 1500 ad? With all those witch hunts, the inquisition, treating Jews like second class citizens, and corruption (that I already mentioned) I'm sure that was a fun place to be as well.

Just like you can point out evil secular societies, I can point out evil non-secular societies. So try again there buddy.

frazzle

Its the power of ideas, for good or for bad, that define us and rule us.

Congratulations, I'm glad you got to the meat of the issue. So now you can drop the whole religion is necessary rhetoric and accept that secular or non, bad people exist and will try to take a good thing away from people for their own benefit.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Though math says that the existence of the ark is impossible and engineering says that the boat wouldn't even hold together in the water.

Bible says god created the land animals the same day he created man some 6,000 years ago. Noah was told to take pairs of each land animal.

So imagine a male-female pairing of each dinosaur.

An impressive engineering feat indeed!

God re-created the land animals you see in the present age 6000 years ago. Dinosaurs were a life form that existed several million years ago and did not co-exist with man. All life on Earth was eradicated (ELE) prior to God's re-creation week 6000 years ago, the only animals in existence today are those created during that time and natural variations thereof.

Noah was told to take a pair of unclean animals and 7 pairs of clean animals.

It was an impressive engineering feat indeed. Mock all you want it is irrelevant to what is true.

God Bless,

Krazysh0t

frazzle

Its the power of ideas, for good or for bad, that define us and rule us.

Congratulations, I'm glad you got to the meat of the issue. So now you can drop the whole religion is necessary rhetoric and accept that secular or non, bad people exist and will try to take a good thing away from people for their own benefit.

So who's idea was it to transform this country from a can-do kind of people into citizen subjects who can do nothing without permission? Was that done by religious institutions or secular? I notice that you chose not to address that particular part of my commentary in your attempt to draw me into your secular paradigm with such transparently false congratulations.

reply to post by ElohimJD

Thank you for your permission. I would have mocked without it

Can you please back up with biblical verses in support of 2 Creations.

Don't flood please. Just what is necessary.

frazzle

Krazysh0t

frazzle

Its the power of ideas, for good or for bad, that define us and rule us.

Congratulations, I'm glad you got to the meat of the issue. So now you can drop the whole religion is necessary rhetoric and accept that secular or non, bad people exist and will try to take a good thing away from people for their own benefit.

So who's idea was it to transform this country from a can-do kind of people into citizen subjects who can do nothing without permission? Was that done by religious institutions or secular? I notice that you chose not to address that particular part of my commentary in your attempt to draw me into your secular paradigm with such transparently false congratulations.

How would I know who's idea it was? Isn't part of being on ATS to talk about these conspiracies. You are making an assumption about the beliefs of people that you don't even know their names, much less their private lives. Frankly, I'm not sure it's relevant anyways, since bad people can corrupt any society; secular, non-secular, or both, it doesn't matter what they believe. At the end of the day they are still assholes.

I've already given you examples of non-secular societies that were hijacked by assholes and used for their own nefarious purposes, so really what does ONE country, that isn't even totally secular, being hijacked by people (who you are eluding are secular) prove anyways? One example makes an interesting case study, you need multiple instances to make it into a pattern. But I've shown you that the pattern doesn't just pertain to secular societies.

You are trying to paint a picture where America is this special case and that it falling apart PROVES that a society cannot last without religion. But how many times do we have to repeat ourselves? There are societies without religion RIGHT NOW that are doing just well. There are societies RIGHT NOW that are repressive and what you would call evil that are completely religious. So the question remains, what makes you think that religion has ANYTHING at all to do with how a society treats its citizenry?

I congratulated you because I thought that maybe you came to your senses and realized the folly of your statement, but I guess I was wrong. You are going to continue to give undue weight to evidence that supports your claim while deweighing evidence that contradicts your claim completely. All evidence needs to be weighted equally, if there is something that contradicts your statement, then you are wrong. QED

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Thank you for your permission. I would have mocked without it

Can you please back up with biblical verses in support of 2 Creations.

Don't flood please. Just what is necessary.

Apparently he doesn't believe in crocodiles and alligators. I mean if ALL the animals on earth were wiped out 6000 years ago so that God could create us, crocodiles and alligators couldn't POSSIBLY exist. Also I guess this tree doesn't exist either: World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden

Though one has to wonder, if God loves life, why would he scorch the Earth to make room for us?

@Krazysh0t....You are being intellectually dishonest. You said that marriage isn't the sole domain of Christianity, therefore as LONG as there is a religion (any religion) that accepts gays and marries them, then it should be legit. I am using YOUR reasoning to show you the flaw in your logic. Just because the religion is new doesn't mean you have a point. All religions were new at one point.

Churches marrying off gays are contradicting their book...and are by themselves a symptom of this media driven change of societal norms. Christian or nor, any new ''religion'' that seeks to marry gays would be a result of the changing norms of society. The only marriage that prevailed across the world for thousands of years was not the gay weddings being conducted by certain ''churches''.